Poor, poor pitiful me

Occasionally, as a daily columnist, I depart from writing about the loftier socio-political-spiritual issues of the day in favor of something totally self-indulgent – what I call a "woe is me" moment.

Prepare yourself. This is one of those days in which you get to experience what it's like to be me – to be attacked from all sides for positions I take and even for positions I don't take.

I feel like Linda Ronstadt singing the blues – "poor, poor pitiful me."

I'll focus on two strikingly different criticisms leveled at me last week – one from the proprietor of the American Muslim website and the other from the conservative publisher of Canada Free Press.

On the one hand, Shiela Musaji of the American Muslim accurately portrays me as "part of the anti-Shariah movement." She then launched into various ad hominem-style attacks on my credibility before accusing me of suggesting "American Muslims just aren't bigoted enough against the gay community." That's what she takes away from this column in which I actually suggested the Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America are not protesting same-sex marriage because they know it will weaken the spirit of the country.

She then goes on to claim I want "to criminalize being gay," though in all the millions of words I have written in my life, no evidence of such a belief has ever been found. She then goes on to lecture me and other ne'er-do-wells like me because "Under the Constitution, and under our wonderful system of separation of Church and State [a principle found nowhere in any of our founding documents or early history, by the way], all citizens of this country have rights and are to be treated equally as citizens regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation."

I'll bet you didn't know the founders had it in mind to protect the rights of serial adulterers and pederasts.

Musaji then massages some more facts to arrive at this conclusion: "Farah would also like to criminalize being Muslim."

How did she deduce that?

From this statement in a discussion on the need to limit future Muslim immigration into the U.S.: "It seems obvious to me that anyone who subscribes to Saudi-style Shariah law, as described in the Islamic Quran and Hadith, would not be inclined to swear allegiance to the Constitution – at least not without crossing his fingers taqiyya-style."

Then comes another lecture from Ms. Musaji: "This is how Islamophobes [that's me] muddy up the water and confuse issues in order to deceive their readers. Shariah and Saudi-style Shariah are not synonomous (sic). The Saudis have a particular interpretation of Shariah that is very conservative and repressive. Much of the Saudi interpretation of Shariah is rejected by most Muslims in the rest of the world. In fact, the Wahhabi interpretations are seen by a majority of Muslims as going against the Quran and Hadith."

So I modify the term "Shariah" with the phrase "Saudi-style," and explain that they are not necessarily the same thing. Isn't that why people use adjectives – to be more precise?

Anyway, you get the point: According to Ms. Musaji, Farah is an unrepentant Islamophobe. Just to set the record straight, no one who criticizes Islamism the way I do is "afraid" of Islam. No one afraid of Islam, which would be the literal definition of "Islamophobe," would dare criticize it publicly, as I do.

Normally, I wouldn't even bring this kind of smear to your attention. It's an everyday experience in my world. But I do so today to set up another one from an entirely different quarter, reflecting no apparent knowledge of my outspokenness as a leader in fighting Shariah.

This adversary accuses me of being a supporter of Ron Paul – not exactly known for his concern over the global jihad. It comes from Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press, who writes: "People who dismiss Congressman Ron Paul as a mere crackpot are inadvertently pushing the USA deeper into the danger zone. Ron Paul For President has found its way on the Drudge Report courtesy of Alex Jones and is garnering support from curious corners. WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah, for one."

Huh?

Farah is an anti-Shariah zealot who supports Ron Paul?

This one surprised even me. Granted I have written many columns about Ron Paul stands that I like and admire – such as his pledge to cut $1 trillion out of federal spending. But daily I am attacked by Ron Paul disciples who would like to see me tarred and feathered. And nowhere, nohow, noway have I ever endorsed Ron Paul nor suggested I support him for the presidency in any way.

For the life of me, I don't even know how someone could ever get that impression. I mean I write just what I think. I'm not known for holding anything back or pulling punches. And I write every day!

I figured this one would be an easy correction. All I would do is ask my old friend Judi McLeod to do the right thing and set the record straight. Certainly I agree with her more often than I agree with Ron Paul. I'll take a few minutes and pick some low-hanging fruit.

So I emailed Judi McLeod: "I really must insist on a retraction and apology for this. Please point to where you can find Joseph Farah endorsing Ron Paul. I am vilified daily by Paulites for not supporting him and for criticizing his positions."

Her unexpected response: "Please point to where I wrote Joseph Farah is 'endorsing' Ron Paul."

My counter: "You didn't use the word 'endorse.' You used 'support.' I fail to see any meaningful difference between the two. So, if you want to play word games, show me where I have ever offered Ron Paul support as a presidential candidate. Because that is clearly what you wrote."

Her response: "To my way of thinking there is a world of difference between 'support' and 'endorse.' If you wish you could write a column or letter stating your point of view and I would publish it word-for-word without editing and post as main cover."

My retort: "You still haven't answered the question: On what basis can you possibly come to the conclusion that I either endorse or support Ron Paul for president? Obviously that is what you stated clearly in your commentary. Since there is no basis for any such claim, you have decided to be cagey. I have no desire to write anything in Canada Free Press. If you want to make sure WND never again links to any articles in CFP because of questions about unreliability of statements and accusations by the editor, you can simply ignore my simple question. On the other hand, if credibility is something that matters to you, you will choose to do the right thing: Apologize and retract the erroneous accusation against me."

To which she concluded the dialogue by saying, "Suit yourself, Joe."

Welcome to my world, where friends are few and you're always fair game regardless of the truth.